Reference

Comparison charts

Notes and questions

A close reading of DSL.pod is necessary to find that empty rules
are considered to be a special case of an rhs alternative. See
Scanless DSL: empty rule

IMHO this part needs an emphasis of some kind, as it makes reading
the remainder of the document easier, whenever it talks about RHS
alternatives.

The role of quantified rules should be clarified too I believe. In
some places I believe that an adverb applies to quantified rules
as well, with this not explicitly stated (See "name", "action", "bless").

It should be noted that while some of the descriptions of adverbs
and context cross-confirm each other, not all them do. I will use
the marker XREF whereever I put information into a table which
came from the other description and is thus not cross-confirmed.

On another note, while the provided meta-grammer using a single set
of rules for the adverbs, thus moving validation of their
applicability past the parser, I see it as possible to give each
context its own variant of <adverb list> which references only
the allowed adverbs for that context. That way there is no need to
validate past the parser, the grammar ensured it already. And this
would be a third cross-check against the human-readable
descriptions.

Strongly tempted to make that happen here.

"The action adverb is allowed for An RHS alternative, in which the
action is for the alternative."

This feels incomplete. Nothing is said about quantified rules.
While empty rules are not mentioned either

Note also that it is explicitly specified to not be allowed for L0
rules at all.

Technically it seems that rules with precedence are possible for
L0. It does not really make sense, as the structure of the
matched lexeme will not be affected by this, but still.

So, is the "assoc" adverb allowed in L0 priority rule/alternatives ?

Is the "name" adverb allowed for quantified rules ?

Nothing is said at all about where the "rank" adverb is allowed, or
not.